Jordan Cooper asserts that Luther’s nominalist label is a major Roman myth, that it ignores the Heidelberg Disputation where Luther appeals to realism and Aristotelian categories. Luther was also a huge fan of Neo-platonists like Bernard of Clairveaux and John Towler but rejects the perennial new age Platonism of pseudo Dyonisius. So just like the claim that Luther is a medieval mystic with qualifications (he was only a fan of CERTAIN mystics), it is also true that Luther used nominalist models in some writings and realist in others over the course of long life. On John Barclay, I found his word Energism for Philippians 2 to be the perfect replacement for extremes of monergism and synergism. God is the sole author of our salvation but He energizes us, quickens us to work out our salvation in gratitude not fear with full assurance that we have been justified and sanctified for the exodus journey out of sin and death and into Union in Christ, receiving an alien righteousness that cleanses us.
@@JanAdamovic I’ve read them. I’ve also read St. Thomas Aquinas’ “Summa Theologica,” which was/is held by the Church to be the preeminent work of medieval theology. It does not teach “working 50% for our salvation” or anything of the sort.
This is honestly just classic Calvinism though. I like what Charles Spurgeon said, something along the lines of "God is 100% sovereign over our salvation, and man is 100% responsible to receive the gospel and obey God. These are two lines that run parallel and meet somewhere in eternity, I know not where."
This is spot on, IMO. The Reformers, via Occam, got rid of the doctrine of concurrence (the simultaneity of first and second causes). This had a huge impact on pastoral and Christian Life theology. It has hurt Christians and the body of Christ. Chrysostom and the church fathers had it right to begin with.
@chrisribaudo9103. That’s all fine and good except for the fact that the Reformers were NOT thoroughgoing Occamists…and never let go of the Doctrine of Concurrence. And in fact faithfully teach it to this day. I don’t know what you’re reading, but it’s wrong! Maybe you should come on over to our side….
Whether Luther was a nominalist is actually quite controversial, but either way, his insistence upon monergism with regard to initial justification is not essentially nominalist. It was pastoral, not metaphysical. And Luther affirmed that after God converts the sinner and regenerates/justifies them, at that point their will has been made new and can cooperate with God - which pretty clearly shows he was not just building an entire theology based on nominalist presupposisions. Also, the Catholic tradition understands the efficacy of infant baptism in essentially "nominalist" terms (if we are going to say initial justification by monergism is nominalist) since the Church affirms a monergistic (at the level of the individual) regeneration/justification when it comes to infant baptism. but of course, monergism isnt intrinsically nominalist. I was just pointing that out to show that Luther's insistence on initial justification being 100% God and 0% man has a basis in the Catholic tradition vis-a-vis infant baptism.
Ya, "Sola Fide" is more of a pastoral approach than a theology, and insofar as it prevents people from trying to do things of their own effort to merit salvation, it's a very good, admirable approach. So much superstition and self-righteousness back then! Still, though, wonky metaphysics is wonky metaphysics, and it shows up any time one tries to systematize protestantism. It's probably why there's do much disagreement and divisions
The underlying foundation of Luther's Sola Fide concept is the unfree will, in which case God's declaration of the sinner to be justified is necessary. I believe the severing of justification with sanctification is what makes Luther's theology on justification nominalistic, because in his paradigm, the sinner is still intrinsically a sinner, but God outwardly declares him as righteous through the covering of the sinner with Christ's perfected work. I think Luther and his theological decedents like Melanchthon truly thought they were being Pauline and patristic in their arguments, as evidenced by Melanchthon's clashes with the Sorbonne theologians in which he states that the Lutheran theology is a reenactment of the defense against Pelagianism, where Melanchthon declares "Behold! In the chief place, and thus in the one which reigns above all, Luther has Augustine on his side, by no means the meanest of the fathers". Evidently through his writings to colleagues like Johannes Brenz and his revised version on his commentary on Romans, Melanchthon in his later years will come to relinquish the idea that Augustine's view on justification is in agreement with him and Luther (not to say he didn't have appreciation for Augustine, but his writings do show that he believes Augustine didn't have it quite right in regards to justification, and that his idea of forensic justification fit better with the scriptures). So I don't think the question is whether Luther was a full-on nominalist or not, I think it's more of where in his theology was affected by nominalism, to what degree, is it compatible with what the scriptures and the church have always taught, and what did his theological decedents do with it once Luther passed on.
In the example of the pen and the hand, in which the question is what caused the writing on the paper, both hand and pen may be causes, but the hand is also the cause of the pen's action. That is exactly the Calvinist position, from my non-Calvinist understanding of it. Yet, if I hear Thomas correctly, he's saying that this is the church fathers' position that the Reformers departed from.
I am by no means a scholar on this area of history, but as I've read in some other comments, I would argue that Luther still believes heavily in the idea that once we are saved, we are to live our lives out in Christ. I don't know of any Protestants in the circles I've been who actually believe that once you are saved you just get to live how you want to. My problem with a 'works-based' mentality is more of a pastoral approach which is that if we plant a seed in someone's mind that have to work to get saved, you will end up in a sour spot in faith. Because I am saved, it is my joy to do the good work of Christ. I also am not sure I can jump on board the idea of 2 planes of existence. Yes, you can say God's salvation for us exists on one plane and our salvation for us exists on another, but I have trouble with that (I suppose an intellectual barrier) which asks alot of questions of it. If Gods salvation for 100% His doing, then it doesn't matter that there are 2 planes because we should be covered by that salvation. Unless it is to imply there are 2 salvations by which we must be saved, which I think most would disagree with. But you can't really claim they are entirely on different planes because one directly affects the other. The planes must intersect at some point so it's possible for 100% of God's work to do the salvation necessary. But at that intersection, you would hopefully still only have 1 salvation. Plus, if there are 2 planes, which plane do we live by? We are somewhat constrained to our plane because of our finiteness so I think therein lies the problem. If we are to live by what we are capable of living, we would be entirely a works-based religion where you earn your way to heaven. The problem with teaching something that seems to contradict is you will get a lot of people who check the boxes while not actually having genuine faith to do. Like as long as I go to church, take communion and get baptized ill be totally okay. God desires of us a real heart change and I'm not sure this Catholic and ancient teaching of works is working to produce great fruit for Christ
That's correct. Luther's theology is more of a dialectic between Law (God's demands as holy and just) and Gospel (the promise of forgiveness to those who believe). Belief for Luther is not primarily propositional, but has a participatory element as well.
@@Magnulus76 To strengthen your point, belief/faith/trust for Luther is primarily relational (participatory); either one trusts Christ, His Word and works, or one trusts the devils, their lies and works. This is reflected in the Lutheran emphasis on the preached Word (in sermon, song, Sacrament and Divine Service); that the people are surrounded by Christ's Word to combat the devils'.
@Magnulus76 I think pastorally it's helpful to frame your assurance in having a relationship with God. Because in relationships, you might not always be perfect, but you put in the effort to show that you care and that you love that person. In this case, you love God and so your goal is not to prove your worth, but to show you love. The reason I don't tend to like a works based foundation is because ive noticed in myself and others it often leads away from the gospel. It becomes more important to either prove yourself or you become fixated on how you haven't given to the poor in a few months or you have this one habitual sin. I think relationships are more complicated than that and your heart should be a desire to get rid of your old self so that you can be united with the one who has saved you.
Fascinating! What would Jordan Cooper say? I wonder. I've heard Lutherans say that, although educated by Nominalists, Luther was not one. Matthew Thomas seems to think otherwise. This explains my own thoughts on divine sovereignty and human freedom without having fully understood the philosophical nuances mentioned here. My question has been: Why? Why does my faith, and any related actions, have to be an affront to God's sovereignty and glory? I've had an affinity for the way the Church Fathers understood this. Now I know why. Many thanks!
The main difference between lutheranism and synergistic and/or sacramentarian theologies is anthropology. Man has not got free will. Nominalism leads to work salvation. Luther taught the exact opposite.
Just looked up on it, the quote is closer to Calvin than Luther's quote but Luther says something to similar in line with "Faith that works through love" and "Faith without works is dead"
I have a hard time believing that he has read Luther’s “A Treatise on Good Works”. Luther absolutely believed that men work out their faith. I don’t think he was a nominalist or tried to force everything on a single plane.
Luther was incoherent and inconsistent in his views. In the history of Christianity, basically every heretic has affirmed both the heresy and the orthodoxy in order to make their heresy less obvious.
He doesn't seem to realise the only thing Luther said was by faith alone was the forgiveness of sins. That forgiveness is what was taught as being by faith alone. Luther's antinomian disputations from the 1530s demonstrate this quite adequately.
This shows how the good old Calvinist predestination stuff happens. His ending doesn't really get him out of it; if God wants you saved, you're gonna be saved, if not, you're gonna be out. 100 percent.(and of course, everyone counts themselves as saved, lol) I'll stick with the Catholic view that it's relational, like a marriage, you have to do your part to be in it. People so don't realize what they're missing not being part of the church, and playing around with all these offshoots.
But the scriptures quite explicitly say that God desires all to be saved, so His salvific Grace must be equally applied equally to all mankind. Calvinism with its limited atonement is a nonsensical position, if there's any remotely feasible alternative to the traditional position it's Universalism, if, for example, you assume man cannot reject Divine Grace or that man's willful or active participation in it is not necessary for salvation.
People often forget that Catholics and Calvinists don't disagree on predestination while we disagree on areas around predestination such as grace, perseverance, mortal sin and more.
@@npuritan6769 I believe you are are conflating Thomism with "double predestination" as understood by Calvin. There is predestination in Thomism; in fact, in all orthodox Catholicism there is some form of predestination. But no double predestination as active reprobation.
When the Catholic position is properly understood, and you realize many of Luther's valid criticisms were addressed at the Council of Trent, it becomes incredibly difficult to understand why Protestantism is still necessary. Frankly, I'm sort of surprised Protesantism still exists. We just have too much access to patristics, history, the Catechism, and so on now. I suppose many people were raised with anti-catholic polemics from their pastor and Jack Chick tracts and so on. I don't think it's a coincidence that we're seeing many Protestants go Catholic/Orthodox in the age of the internet - I myself was shocked when I compared actual Catholic teaching to what I'd heard being raised Baptist.
Quite simple actually. The Catholic Church changed doctrines way too much throughout church history. This is objective truth. Much of what the Catholic Church teaches did not come from the apostles, such as clergy being celibate for example. This came in the Middle Ages. Now obviously, I know Paul explained how it is good to be so, but it was never a requirement. The Catholics have many accretions.
As for Orthodox, I think they’re a lot closer. However, I’m skeptical of intercession of saints and Mary since this is not mentioned in all of church history until hundreds of years later after the apostles. Then when you compare the prayers early on, much more reserved. Then as time goes on some become very close to idolatry, such as asking Mary for salvation.
@@ihiohoh2708 And the requirement for Christians to venerate icons... It's not that all protestant expressions are correct either, but the reformation epistemology allows for course correction.
So essentially it seems as though these churches put tradition above all, even when they appear to be accretions. The dogma of them is my issue. That you must absolutely believe this in every way despite evidence against it or you could potentially even go to hell. Where is any of this in Scripture? It’s not.
My encouragement to everyone would be to read Luther and Melancthon for yourselves, especially the Book of Concord, and weigh the arguments carefully. Certainly, secondary scholarship is helpful, but you can only get enriched if you spend time reading the Augsburg Confession and the Apology from the Lutherans and then Exsurge Domine, the Confutation, and then the canons of Trent from the Catholic side. Be good students of history, and do the homework. Personally, I’m not convinced by the “Luther was a nominalist” polemic, when it seems like the truth was a lot more nuanced.
No one should care so much about the opinions of one man if that one man is not in agreement with the historical understanding of the church. Luther is like anyone, right about some things, wrong about others. Nothing should be built upon him because only one true foundation can be laid, and that is Jesus Christ. Luther, brilliant as he was, is a faulty foundation, like any other man.
@@richardbenitez1282 My comment is perfectly accurate. It says nobody *should*.. you say that anybody can. Just because they can doesn't mean they should.
@dumbidols. I’m not aware of anyone who DOES base all their theological opinions on one man. No present Lutheran sect is all that particularly reliant on Luther’s thought and teaching.
I didn't hear where he defined justification. He seems to be using that term interchangeably with salvation. It would be interesting to me to hear his definitions of justification, salvation, and sanctification.
Polycarp - Letter to the Philippians Ch.1 (110 AD) "In whom, though now you see Him not, you believe, and believing, rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory; 1 Peter 1:8 into which joy many desire to enter, knowing that by grace you are saved, not of works, Ephesians 2:8-9 but by the will of God through Jesus Christ."
Polycarp - Letter to the Philippians Ch.1 (110 AD) "In whom, though now you see Him not, you believe, and believing, rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory; 1 Peter 1:8 into which joy many desire to enter, knowing that by grace you are saved, not of works, Ephesians 2:8-9 but by the will of God through Jesus Christ."
@DrGero15 just replied with link though in case it gets removed, it's under this Channel's video tab from roughly a month or so ago / Dr Matthew Thomas interview
What finished Luther in my eyes was his book "On Jews and Their Lies " i listened to some of it on audio (youtube has many ). He gave himself away as being anything but a Christian. Its an evil intented book and seeing he wrote this at the end of his career it truly shows his colors. And a bad seed cant produce good fruit. Im Catholic but i do admit to listening now and then to a protestant sermon because i believe any honest sermon based from the parables or the o.t. stories has goodness in it. Pray for unity, pray the Rosary daily and obtain that peace that defies understanding. 🙏🏽💙🙏🏾💙🙏🏻
@richardkasper5822. Well, then, you’d better jettison Thomas More while you’re at it, who could be just as vile personally and rhetorically. (Oh, and can you assure us that your own behavior has always been on the up and up? Or have there been episodes that would cause us to doubt your Christian status?)
I'll throw in my two cents as to why from what I've read, since Luther's philosophy is highly contentious within and without the Reformation traditions and I'm unqualified in that regard. Luther, as a medieval lawyer, assumed his then-contemporary standards of law code. That is, you are declared externally righteous on a matter completely extrinsic to yourself. The justification is not of you but by that which is outside of you, namely the evidences used. Thus, Luther sees justification in this sense, it's not of the agent. And, from that, it has to be Christ's righteousness which we accrue in this alien sense that makes this at all possible, since He alone is the righteous man to have ever existed. So imputation (thanks to Latin butchering logizomai, , I spelled it wrong) is how we are reckoned as righteous. Just as a court declares us righteous in light of the evidence, so too are we declared righteous by the account of Christ. As such, sola fide isn't (as evangelicals assume) you just have faith and God handles the rest. Faith by itself, in the classical Reformation, was meaningless. It doesn't do anything on its own. It was just that by which you accrued Christ's merits. It was only beneficial in that regard as a tool, not a virtue. So faith is how you gain that imputation of Christ's merits. And that's what sola fide in the classical sense is. It is the imputation of a foreign righteousness completely alien to the agent receiving it for the purpose that they are justified. Which, in that way, is certainly a nominalist way of thinking and the line of reasoning absolutely is. I'm not arguing if Luther was a dyed-in-the-wool nominalist since that's highly contentious, but he certainly wasn't unaffected by it. More to this video, the conflict begins when he and others like Melancthon, Chemnitz, and Calvin try to find early church use of this idea of sola fide being used in the early church. Ad fontes! The issues were immediately all over the place. You had bad translations floating around, manipulations of texts, and the ultimate realization that the early church just did not teach this method of justification via imputation. Because, unsurprisingly, these ancient-to-early-medieval thinkers did not have the idea of late-medieval law proceedings and nominalist assumptions to go off of. More to the point, that's why you get the idea the early church apostatized either immediately after the Apostles died out or that it was corrupted at some point later, whether by Constantine, Theodosius, or whatever boogeyman you need. Why do you think Luther came up with the "Great Apostasy"? Because they weren't teaching the hinge upon which the Church stands or falls. I stand open to correction but that's where I see the issue as it lies. But, since I assume there will be quotes from people like Clement or John Chrysostom or others thrown out as saying phrases like "faith alone" or "not of ourselves," ask these 2 questions: do those readings fit in accord with imputation and faith as an empty virtue? Or, do they fit in accord with a plain-old anti-Pelagian/Augustinian reading?
Whats ironic is Luther admits that he was a better Christian as a Catholic than he was as a Protestant lol: This is what St. Paul meant when he preaches about love. “If I speak in the tongues of angels;” and again: “If I had all faith so that I could move mountains, but did not have love, then I would still be nothing,” etc. (1 Corinthians 13[:1-2]) If a person goes off securely in the thought that he has faith, and yet never experiences it, he must decay and dry up; his faith will be found nowhere at all when it comes to the point that it should be found. The dear apostles certainly saw this, and we experience it. The world always either boasts falsely about faith, or wants to be holy without faith. If we preach about faith and grace, no one wants to do works. If we promote works, no one wants faith. Those who keep to the true middle course are very rare. Indeed, it is even hard for righteous Christians. I confess for myself - and without a doubt others must also confess, that I lack the diligence and seriousness [some translations: “earnestness”], which I should now much more than before; I am much more careless than I was under the papacy. Nowhere is there now the seriousness [some translations: “zeal”] with the Gospel which we saw previously among the monks and priests, when people established and built so much, and no one was so poor that he would not give something. However, now there is not one city which would support a preacher, and nothing except only robbing and stealing among the people, and no one restrains it. Where does such a shameful affliction come from? They cry out: “From the doctrine they teach, that people should not rely on works!” However, it is the devil himself who falsely blames this on the pure, saving doctrine; it is the fault of his and people’s malice who misuse this doctrine - as well as our old Adam who always wants to follow the forest trail to nowhere- and think that it is unnecessary, even if we do not do many good works and so become unintentionally lazy and negligent and stale, until we completely lose the strength and savor of faith. (Sermon on 1 John 4:16-21: from a series of sermons on 1 John and love, dated 1532-1533; in Luther’s Works, Vol. 78: Church Postil IV [2015], 365-405;
Ultimately Catholics and Orthodox and later Protestants really took off when they were embraced by the aristocracy. In the case of Protestants it was not so much the arguments that persuaded the local lords to embrace it, but the opportunity to set up their own religious little sphere of power that is not beholden to Rome. It was a golden opertiunity for local ambitious lords to set up their own religious spheres and not be answerable to Rome, and as long as there was only Catolics around this could not be done. Protestant flavor offered new ways to keep the religion that peasants wanted while detach oneself from Rome. And once the opportunity was recognized and acted upon, protestant flavor of Christianity truly had a chance to be something more than just a heretical branch. Only when aristocracy embraces religion does it really take off, as it is seen with rainbow mafia today. Ortodox were blessed with Constantine, Catholics also were embraced by rich and powerful after initial persecution. and finally protestants. If the aristocracy didn't embrace it and sided with Rome, there would be no protestants... no matter how much they protested. Regardless of moral arguments, the thing that religion or ideology really needs is patronage of the rich and powerful to thrive. Liberalism, Feminism, fascism, communism, Nazism, progressivism, technocracy etc. Modern ideologies only took off when rich and powerful patronize it, and when it comes to revolutions it was the time and place that played the key role, when the old regime crumbled under their own weight, as in French Revolution, Russian Revolution etc. Maybe people only look at moral arguments, which may be on point, but it will only take it so far, you need patronage of the ruling class as well, or at very least, world level cataclysmic events, like WWI or something similar to create conditions for hostile take over of the weak regime, otherwise the ruling class will make sure you stay in the shadows.
Have some fun with this: go to the document linked. Then read the first section on Luther. Note that he uses a particular section of Luther's 2nd commentary on Galatians as his text for Luther's "narrow" interpretation of justification. Ok. Now go to section 5, where he discusses some modern broader ideas on justification. Oh what's this? He now cites other paragraphs from the same chapter of the same Luther commentary he cited earlier, but now he is saying it has this broader understanding of justification. Gee, maybe that broader understanding was there all the time and people chose to ignore it? I'm not making this up, just go check out his paper, it's kinda hilarious and also deflates his whole presentation here.
I reply to the argument, then, that our obedience is necessary for salvation. It is, therefore, a partial cause of our justification. Many things are necessary which are not a cause and do not justify, as for instance the earth is necessary, and yet it does not justify. If man the sinner wants to be saved, he must necessarily be present, just as he asserts that I must also be present. What Augustine says is true, “He who has created you without you will not save you without you.”1 Works are necessary to salvation, but they do not cause salvation, because faith alone gives life. On account of the hypocrites we must say that good works are necessary to salvation. It is necessary to work. Nevertheless, it does not follow that works save on that account, unless we understand necessity very clearly as the necessity that there must be an inward and outward salvation or righteousness. Works save outwardly, that is, they show evidence that we are righteous and that there is faith in a man which saves inwardly, as Paul says, “Man believes with his heart and so is justified, and he confesses with his lips and so is saved” [Rom. 10:10]. Outward salvation shows faith to be present, just as fruit shows a tree to be good. “THE DISPUTATION CONCERNING JUSTIFICATION,” LW, 165.
@@geoffrobinson Yes, and he disagreed with Calvin and Zwingli about what those Scriptures meant on the Eucharist, the necessity of baptism, predestination, the veneration of icons, and so on. The central claim of the Reformation was that Scripture is able to be plainly interpreted, and yet there was never a single point in history where the Reformers agreed on key issues of salvation and worship practice. Sacred Tradition allows us to interpret Scripture rightly in light of the oral teachings of the Apostles and the Church's interpretation over the centuries.
Polycarp - Letter to the Philippians Ch.1 (110 AD) "In whom, though now you see Him not, you believe, and believing, rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory; 1 Peter 1:8 into which joy many desire to enter, knowing that by grace you are saved, not of works, Ephesians 2:8-9 but by the will of God through Jesus Christ."
@@bradyhayes7911the problem was that Zwingli and Calvin were humanists, Luther was not Doesn’t matter anymore, considering the Roman Catholics are all humanists today as well, the jesuits did a great job at that . Anyways, enjoy your idol worship
Why did you give a statement of [eternal separation from God] to open your comment? Contextually, its placement made no sense. Could it be that you merely want to use filthy language like Papists and Russo-simps love to use? I fail to see the point of cussing here, beyond the abandonment of virtue.
Lutheran theology is the only one that distinguishes the law from the gospel AND gives to the sacraments their proper position, i.e. means of grace. Our salvation is ''extra nos'', comes from God not from us, not from us even 0,0001%. Please do not manipulate Philippians 2 to your synergistic/pelasgian/semi-pelasgian/arminian theology. Never forget what it says there. It says ''μετὰ φόβου καὶ τρόμου τὴν ἑαυτῶν σωτηρίαν κατεργάζεσθε'' ( = work out your own salvation with fear and trembling) and continues ''ὁ Θεὸς γάρ ἐστιν ὁ ἐνεργῶν ἐν ὑμῖν καὶ τὸ θέλειν καὶ τὸ ἐνεργεῖν ὑπὲρ τῆς εὐδοκίας'' ( = for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure). ONLY CHRIST, BY GRACE, THROUGH THE GIFT OF FAITH IN WORD AND BAPTISM, AS IT IS TESTIFIED IN THE BIBLE, ALL THE GLORY TO GOD.
Because he saw the Trinity presented in the scriptures. It’s not an unnecessarily complicated thing, and Occam was not interested in putting aside complex explanations as long as those explanations are accurate and can’t be reduced without harm.
@@silouanlane319 aw. Ok. Allow me to expound further although this is rhetorical at this point. Even slightly hypothetical. It all boils down then to how you interpret the scripture. The Iglesia ni Cristo sect in the Philippines will tend to be occamist about trinity - since the bible was not fully explicit with the trinity, they reject it and its complex philosophical arguments. But Luther used the occam's razor because it is convenient to what he believed the bible is saying, but otherwise he doesn't use it on the doctrines he agrees with. It seems the oversimplified explanation of why Luther had his own doctrine of justification is correct - he read a version of romans 3:28 that has a slight difference in words.
Augustine of Hippo really has not helped any of us as with regards to causality or predestination. This is my personal opinion anyway. I just find meticulous causal determinism - in either it's Augustinian, Aquinan or Reformation forms, entirely incoherent and unnecessary in light of a real degree of autonomy and synergy (whilst not denying the preventing nature of Grace) that John Cassian and the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox and others etc have always held to. A reading of John of Damascus on Divine Providence is very enlightening x
@@authorityfigure1630 There were some in the Border States, but most of the North had largely abandoned slavery by the outbreak of the War. At any rate, there were far more slave owners in the South. The goal of the Confederacy was to preserve slavery, whereas the goal of the Union was, after 1863, to destroy slavery. History is never black and white, but the Confederacy was clearly a state founded on white supremacy and the subjugation of Black people. By the way, this is coming from someone who was raised believing that the South's cause was noble and that the Confederate flag was a symbol of "heritage". But if you read the writings of Jefferson Davis, Alexander Stevens, and several other prominent Confederates, it becomes abundantly clear that the Civil War was unequivocally about slavery.
I dont think the good doctor understands the reformation tradition, honestly. This line of thinking is quite silly, and he notes how protestants are returning to the pre-occamist model, but completely ignores the Reformed and Lutheran second and third generation theologians who were never once nominalist. Its patently obvious that Luther, Calvin, vermigli, zanchi, etc did not place God and man on the same plane. At the very least the reformed tradition was broadly thomistic (not entirely thomist) in affirming participation by analogy against univocity of being. But hey all i am doing is inviting ten catholics to instantly disagree
This guy seems nice and charitable, but he says quite a lot of things in untrue ways. Ockham's razor is not just "simplify" nor anything close to it. To do that is to perform an unacceptable Ockham on what Ockham is (lol just being silly but seriously) it's more like "the solution with the least amount of unproven assumptions is a better solution as long as it explains the result the same." -- an impossible measurement beyond the most simplistic logical questions, but there it is, and is only true insofar as everything proposed actually corresponds to reality. "Why do we have to receive it 100% as a gift?" - because Paul says it's a gift directly. This is the problem with propositional representations of the living spirit. I have not read all of Luther, but I find it impossible to believe Luther didn't say "why...a gift? Because Paul says it's a gift and not of works." This guy unfortunately has an agenda, as do all men with everything, but it comes down to what's true. Philosophy is only worthy of anything insofar as it corresponds to reality. Also, two planes of existence actually do exist, I am convinced. We are a simulation. God is the only true reality. We are categorically unlike Him in terms of our kind of existence. We are derivative not primary, this is obviously true within divine simplicity framed Christianity and I think an inescapable conclusion regardless of where you land on the manner of God's nature. If He is "base" reality (really real) and we are derivatively real and therefore less or categorically differently real (obviously true), then there must be planes of existence and causality (I think). Also also, equivocation is such a common issue in all of these discussions, but I find it particularly prevalent in Catholic apologies. "work out your salvation" in the context of the same sentence is instantly paired with "it's God at work in you". To conflate Paul's use of "work out/produce your salvation..." with Paul's other use of "works which are meritorious compelling God to save you through effort" is egregious equivocation. Works have nothing to do with our •reception of Christ's offering• (for my Catholic friends: Protestants generally call the "already" portion of our salvation when we accept Christ at the call of the Gospel "being saved" but forget there is a "not yet" component to salvation also which Catholics definitely understand), this is clear in Romans, Ephesians, etc that we are not saved by works and it can have nothing to do with works or else it is not by grace. Works are the completion of our faith (Hebrews) which is a culmination and manifestation of our Trust in Christ. They are "you participating in salvation" (salvation here meaning "the life that comes after accepting Christ")" but you aren't participating in your salvation (here meaning "the act of being cleared of sin and judgment"). This isn't woo woo. I wish people could stop being so woo woo Edit: had to make an edit! Sorry! Forgot the equivocation piece and needed to change some confusing wording
I see a lot of your opinions here, but I don't see them as obviously true. Why, therefore, should I take your word for it that the "gift" means exactly what you think it means? No one denies that salkvation is a gift. That doesn't amount to Luther's novel interpretation being true.
@user-nj1rc9hk4h "Gift means gift." Gosh, what a groundbreaking contribution! Many things can be "Biblical," because it is actually very easy to make multiple interpretations fit the same text, because as literally every literary analysis scholar agrees, written text is too vague to make certain claims on when people disagree. Fortunately, history can tell us how the earliest Christians took it, and the way they understood it was not the way that Luther understood salvation. There are many ways to understand the phrase "salvation is a gift." "I am declared legally allowed into heaven by God because I intellectually agree with the gospel" is one new way to interpret it.
So I’m a bit confused. My elders all hold to a reformed soteriology and call themselves compatibilists. They claim that reformed soteriology is comptabilism. Why is it being presented differently here?
A more classical reformed position a la Calvin is monergism. The compatibility minded reformed folks are trying to avoid totally refuting human agency in salvation because monergism is clearly not presented in the scriptures. And human participation in salvation clearly does not lessen the glory due to God.
@@simontemplar3359nobody said He said that. Again distortions of the anti catholics. I would really wish to see , if if only once, an anti catholic phrase which is true.
calling Luther a nominalist because you think he holds a black and white view and then liken that to Occam is not a good rational for the claim. he may yet be one but that is a flimsy reason for calling him one. Dr cooper discusses in this video. ruclips.net/video/plVNAjR0LU8/видео.html
That's what you get for saying luther was a nominalist, lol jk bro. We all have philosophical and personal presupositions, sone are biblical, some we import. luther tried to be consistent with the bible but he actually still held to some false dialectics and his own philosophical presups that messed up his theology a bit. Im lutheran btw.
@user-nj1rc9hk4h ok, how do you reconcile jesus saying that if we don't forgive we will not be forgiven with sola fide? How do you explain james, revelation and the final judgement passage were the bible talks about christians being justified by works, if not by some form of synergistic theology?
As a protestant the main issue with protestantism is we took augustine And went totally overboard Augustine was a manchiean gnostic for 10 years and believed god preordained everything Many fathers speak on faith alone. But the idea of the father predestination s u to faith is ridiculous Calvinism is absolutely ridiculous god is free and so are we. There are numerous examples But the e.o. and rcc misrepresent us. And believe we dont want to do good works. ... I.e. a mountaiin im on is a porn addiction. Its gotten better. I dont watch as much extreme but i dont want to anymore. Im praying for gods help. But i know i have to respond. Its not his sole responsibility its mine to to respond. However e.o. rcc have justification and faith backwards. They say works(fruit) produce a good tree(faith) Protestant tree(faith ) will produce a change fruit. We also dont like the extra biblical traditions. I will not dont care what the excuse is i will not kiss a image The idea that icons were used early is totally ridiculous It wasnt dogma till 600s. And there were major controvery even during eusibius Also eusibius had no clue what happened to marry. The infancy gospels. Are gnostic. As well. Does that mean a piece of art is evil. No. But no it doesnt mean we pray to them. Saying the traditions are from the fathers There only excuse is trust me bro. Thats why catholics and orthodox are pissed at each other... What did the pharisees and saducees do... We got our traditions from moses... The excuse Trust me bro. .... we all know how that worked. Its not like it isnt recorded in every gospel... The beuty about ecuminical councils is unity... But the beuty of protestantism. Is personal responsibility decision making. And our churches or individuals can always course correct. I.e. i refuse to ban women in ministry Based on just one passage. When we have Miriam Deborah(who literally led isreal as a judge.) Junia and other women who were litterally ministering in ephesus. Or how bought anna... in the gospel of luke... (a prohet) The same ephesus as timothy. So Are we to say that pual sends her there Speaks well of her then turns around and says they cant preach... No that makes no sense. Its nonsense. Something else is being described there. 🤔 Also early churches were house churches. And roman women who are widows. Would actually control the household we know that pual never advocated the total destruction of a culture. He was concerned with sexual immorality and idol worship. Orgies the other works of the flesh. So if a women controlled her household and her friends met in her house for a house service Who by there culture would head the service. Would it be polite or respectful for a man from outside to go in and demand authority... No. I.e. The women with pual lived there Would it be appropriate for a random man to demand leadership 🤔 It makes zero sense. Let alone mary magdalin who carried the message to the apostles who were filled with doubt.😅 There are pics in there catacombs of women in ministry under rome from early on... Its quite clear that a tradition happened and we lost something important and has been infecting christianity ever sense
@@ihiohoh2708 again never base a doctrine on one verse. When u consider that in previous books u have women ministers junia. And if that verse was to be understood as it has been for 1800 years. Cuase in early church there were. What do u make of the women prophets. It would make A) pual a lier Or the bible becomes contradictory. That town was ephesus. Ephesus. Was a host town for the daughters of artemis cult. They taught women were first. Formed They tuaght women were superior. They wouldn't let women marry They made virginity a huge deal. Where as u look at the rest of that ch. It talks specifically men were formed first. And women are saved by childbearing. Also the word translated authority has been noted can actually mean author. I.e. pual could have been saying I don't permit women to teach authorship of men. Meaning they made men. Or came before men. It aligns more with the meaning of the rest of passage. Also let's look at some logic. Hypothetical situation here Let's say there is a huge disaster. And millions die. A young girl survives and finds a bible in some ruble and begins to read. She gets up and begins to walk ministering to survivors People who have never heard the gospel. She is in a position to spread God's word. Is it logical for her to get to some random enclave teach the male elder what she knows and then hand the bible to him for her to pass all her knowledge off and never teach .... Serious question. Or is it due to her for her to pick up leave the man with apt knowledge and head off to convert more. Proving more leaders up. Under the church traditions logic a women couldn't say anything to anybody. And it just doesn't follow
@@ihiohoh2708 no. I never said pual is a lier I said that the traditional view. Creates contradiction. Similer to how u have people use a few passing passages to justify y.e.c or flat earth. It creates contradiction. Pual has women ministers traveling with him. And there are women leaders that are not wicked in o.t. So by saying pual meant that women couldn't teach creates a contradiction. It's like christian pacifists. Completley forget god demanded war in. O.t. It's why if there is one good thing augustine did was just war. Becuase many early christians were not thinking about Joshua's Conquest. And even now there are christia. Pacifists that creates contradiction I'm not calling pual a lier. I'm saying that a particular interpretation makes him contradict himself. So don't twist my argument. If u r going to debate with me debate with me in good faith and actually read what I say.
Basically no Protestants believe in a consistent Sola Fide anyway. If Sola Fide is true, then I can sin as much as I want and still go to heaven. ANY alternative to this is, in practical application, identical to rejecting Sola Fide, period.
This is an insightful thought presented unthoughtfully and unhelpfully. I think you're on to something important, BUT you should definitely take some time to learn what "faith" in Christ is. Faith is not merely intellectual assent (seems to be how you're equivocating things), but making Christ your Lord (which obviously requires obeying Him) and trusting in His promise to redeem you if you repent and turn to His sacrifice. Faith can not be less than that. To not have that kind of faith is not to have Christian faith at all.
@ taylorbarrett Faith alone that includes repentence and love for God is how Pope Benedict XVI defined justification... What exactly are the Protestants opposing then?
@@bradyhayes7911 will you quote or source the passage, please? I'd like to read it. I find it very unlikely it's that simple, but if the claim is true, I definitely want to read it, please. Thank you!
So ummmm Luther is not a pope, and 2. Have you ever watched Catholics and Lutheranism argue about justification, you have to ask them find the point where they disagree, cuz they dont. As a Lutheran i can say yes, your justification is from Christ, but keep sinning in repentadly, walk away from the meas of grace sucjlh as the sacraments and see how much salvation you have.
Polycarp - Letter to the Philippians Ch.1 (110 AD) "In whom, though now you see Him not, you believe, and believing, rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory; 1 Peter 1:8 into which joy many desire to enter, knowing that by grace you are saved, not of works, Ephesians 2:8-9 but by the will of God through Jesus Christ."
@@AllforOne_OneforAll1689 well I can just cite the Bible. James Ch 2. Faith without works is dead. You just misunderstand what polycarp is saying. In the writings of Paul when he uses works he’s referring to the Jewish law. Christians do not need to follow the Jewish law to be saved. But we do need to participate in the grace of God. I suggest watching Jimmy Akins recent interview with Frank turek.
@@johnbrion4565 Man you love to add things to the Bible and read it out of context! You failed to realize not only what Polycarp said but also what Paul said in multiple places. Romans 4:1-6, Titus 3:3-7, 2 Timothy 1:8-9, Ephesians 2:8-9 all teach a person is justified before God by grace through faith apart from works! Romans 4:1-6 clearly says Abraham believed in God and it counted to him as righteousness, and that was before the Law of Moses so you're entirely incorrect with asserting that Ephesians 2:8-9 is talking about the Law of Moses. Furthermore, Titus 3:3-7 says "we're not saved by works done in righteousness" so again no mention of the Law of Moses! Go read the whole Bible for once and stop isolating James 2 and reading it of context as you just proved to do.
@@AllforOne_OneforAll1689 hah please explain. It’s pretty clear. Are we not to take the plain view reading? Next are you going to say the Eucharist isn’t Jesus body and blood?
Luther debunked himself when he authored his book "On Jews and Their Lies " in it he encouraged the burning down of homes ,schools and synagogues and the nazi party even used quotes from this book to further their propaganda and to convince the german people that antisemitism had a long Christian history in Germany.
Polycarp - Letter to the Philippians Ch.1 (110 AD) "In whom, though now you see Him not, you believe, and believing, rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory; 1 Peter 1:8 into which joy many desire to enter, knowing that by grace you are saved, not of works, Ephesians 2:8-9 but by the will of God through Jesus Christ."
Monergism is biblical. Plain and simple. It’s God centered versus man centered. God regenerates the sinner and changes their nature. That changed nature will want to be righteous and please God. So many people want to steal the glory that is to God alone. P.S. Augustine holds to the doctrines of grace. Man is free, completely free to act in accordance with their nature.
Luther understood the Scriptures better based on reflection that involved both Scripture and previous fathers that came before him. Simple as. Ephesian 2 says "apart from works so no man can boast" means "apart from works". Planes of causality doesn't mean "with works." God works 100% for our salvation but only some people believe and some don't? The fault line is with the fallenness of man. Not "Luther did a nominalism" silliness.
@@yalechuk6714 1 Clement teaches justification by faith alone for instance, so, no I wouldn't phrase it as "everyone before Luther was wrong." Luther is coming to his position after reading Augustine and others. Things get refined over time.
@@christianorthodoxy4769 pride is not listening to Scripture in order to maintain a flawed system. I have no interest in trying to prop up a system like Eastern Orthodoxy that relies on Neo-Platonism or Rome or anything else.
You’re reading something into the text that isn’t there. Ephesians 2:9 simply says that salvation comes apart from works, it does not say that salvation comes through works but God does all of the works. If salvation was about works in any sense then man would theoretically be able to earn salvation, because Jesus Christ as God assumed human nature and worked perfectly and sinlessly as a man, so man has it within his capacity to do this. But salvation isn’t about works it’s about unity to the divine through the mediator in Christ, in other words it is a relationship not working to fulfill the requirements of the law.
I dont think the good doctor understands the reformation tradition, honestly. This line of thinking is quite silly, and he notes how protestants are returning to the pre-occamist model, but completely ignores the Reformed and Lutheran second and third generation theologians who were never once nominalist. Its patently obvious that Luther, Calvin, vermigli, zanchi, etc did not place God and man on the same plane. At the very least the reformed tradition was broadly thomistic (not entirely thomist) in affirming participation by analogy against univocity of being. But hey all i am doing is inviting ten catholics to instantly disagree
Jordan Cooper asserts that Luther’s nominalist label is a major Roman myth, that it ignores the Heidelberg Disputation where Luther appeals to realism and Aristotelian categories. Luther was also a huge fan of Neo-platonists like Bernard of Clairveaux and John Towler but rejects the perennial new age Platonism of pseudo Dyonisius. So just like the claim that Luther is a medieval mystic with qualifications (he was only a fan of CERTAIN mystics), it is also true that Luther used nominalist models in some writings and realist in others over the course of long life. On John Barclay, I found his word Energism for Philippians 2 to be the perfect replacement for extremes of monergism and synergism. God is the sole author of our salvation but He energizes us, quickens us to work out our salvation in gratitude not fear with full assurance that we have been justified and sanctified for the exodus journey out of sin and death and into Union in Christ, receiving an alien righteousness that cleanses us.
@SibleySteve. How exactly is energism distinct from monergism?
According to Dr. Jordan Cooper, Luther was not a Nominalist. Catholic apologists often misread him on this point.
People make too much of Luther's supposed "nominalism". In many places, Luther seems more influenced by Neoplatonism than Aristotle.
The Medieval Church did not think “we work 50% for our salvation.” That’s Pelagianism, which the Catholic Church has NEVER taught.
Read some medieval tracts that were officially distributed and sanctioned by Rome and you mighg change your opinion.
@@JanAdamovicCan you source them?
That’s actually not pelagianism
@@JanAdamovic I’ve read them. I’ve also read St. Thomas Aquinas’ “Summa Theologica,” which was/is held by the Church to be the preeminent work of medieval theology. It does not teach “working 50% for our salvation” or anything of the sort.
@@marincusman9303 regardless, the Catholic Church does not teach works-based salvation
This is honestly just classic Calvinism though. I like what Charles Spurgeon said, something along the lines of "God is 100% sovereign over our salvation, and man is 100% responsible to receive the gospel and obey God. These are two lines that run parallel and meet somewhere in eternity, I know not where."
Where did he say this? Link?
This is spot on, IMO. The Reformers, via Occam, got rid of the doctrine of concurrence (the simultaneity of first and second causes). This had a huge impact on pastoral and Christian Life theology. It has hurt Christians and the body of Christ. Chrysostom and the church fathers had it right to begin with.
Yeah try giving the Westminster confession a read, you will see that secondary causes have never been denied by protestant divines
@chrisribaudo9103. That’s all fine and good except for the fact that the Reformers were NOT thoroughgoing Occamists…and never let go of the Doctrine of Concurrence. And in fact faithfully teach it to this day.
I don’t know what you’re reading, but it’s wrong! Maybe you should come on over to our side….
Whether Luther was a nominalist is actually quite controversial, but either way, his insistence upon monergism with regard to initial justification is not essentially nominalist. It was pastoral, not metaphysical. And Luther affirmed that after God converts the sinner and regenerates/justifies them, at that point their will has been made new and can cooperate with God - which pretty clearly shows he was not just building an entire theology based on nominalist presupposisions. Also, the Catholic tradition understands the efficacy of infant baptism in essentially "nominalist" terms (if we are going to say initial justification by monergism is nominalist) since the Church affirms a monergistic (at the level of the individual) regeneration/justification when it comes to infant baptism. but of course, monergism isnt intrinsically nominalist. I was just pointing that out to show that Luther's insistence on initial justification being 100% God and 0% man has a basis in the Catholic tradition vis-a-vis infant baptism.
Underrated comment.
This is based.
Ya, "Sola Fide" is more of a pastoral approach than a theology, and insofar as it prevents people from trying to do things of their own effort to merit salvation, it's a very good, admirable approach. So much superstition and self-righteousness back then! Still, though, wonky metaphysics is wonky metaphysics, and it shows up any time one tries to systematize protestantism. It's probably why there's do much disagreement and divisions
@@WayneDrake-uk1gg But people who study Luther dont think Luther was a nominalist.
The underlying foundation of Luther's Sola Fide concept is the unfree will, in which case God's declaration of the sinner to be justified is necessary. I believe the severing of justification with sanctification is what makes Luther's theology on justification nominalistic, because in his paradigm, the sinner is still intrinsically a sinner, but God outwardly declares him as righteous through the covering of the sinner with Christ's perfected work.
I think Luther and his theological decedents like Melanchthon truly thought they were being Pauline and patristic in their arguments, as evidenced by Melanchthon's clashes with the Sorbonne theologians in which he states that the Lutheran theology is a reenactment of the defense against Pelagianism, where Melanchthon declares "Behold! In the chief place, and thus in the one which reigns above all, Luther has Augustine on his side, by no means the meanest of the fathers". Evidently through his writings to colleagues like Johannes Brenz and his revised version on his commentary on Romans, Melanchthon in his later years will come to relinquish the idea that Augustine's view on justification is in agreement with him and Luther (not to say he didn't have appreciation for Augustine, but his writings do show that he believes Augustine didn't have it quite right in regards to justification, and that his idea of forensic justification fit better with the scriptures).
So I don't think the question is whether Luther was a full-on nominalist or not, I think it's more of where in his theology was affected by nominalism, to what degree, is it compatible with what the scriptures and the church have always taught, and what did his theological decedents do with it once Luther passed on.
In the example of the pen and the hand, in which the question is what caused the writing on the paper, both hand and pen may be causes, but the hand is also the cause of the pen's action. That is exactly the Calvinist position, from my non-Calvinist understanding of it. Yet, if I hear Thomas correctly, he's saying that this is the church fathers' position that the Reformers departed from.
I am by no means a scholar on this area of history, but as I've read in some other comments, I would argue that Luther still believes heavily in the idea that once we are saved, we are to live our lives out in Christ. I don't know of any Protestants in the circles I've been who actually believe that once you are saved you just get to live how you want to.
My problem with a 'works-based' mentality is more of a pastoral approach which is that if we plant a seed in someone's mind that have to work to get saved, you will end up in a sour spot in faith.
Because I am saved, it is my joy to do the good work of Christ.
I also am not sure I can jump on board the idea of 2 planes of existence. Yes, you can say God's salvation for us exists on one plane and our salvation for us exists on another, but I have trouble with that (I suppose an intellectual barrier) which asks alot of questions of it. If Gods salvation for 100% His doing, then it doesn't matter that there are 2 planes because we should be covered by that salvation. Unless it is to imply there are 2 salvations by which we must be saved, which I think most would disagree with. But you can't really claim they are entirely on different planes because one directly affects the other. The planes must intersect at some point so it's possible for 100% of God's work to do the salvation necessary. But at that intersection, you would hopefully still only have 1 salvation. Plus, if there are 2 planes, which plane do we live by? We are somewhat constrained to our plane because of our finiteness so I think therein lies the problem. If we are to live by what we are capable of living, we would be entirely a works-based religion where you earn your way to heaven. The problem with teaching something that seems to contradict is you will get a lot of people who check the boxes while not actually having genuine faith to do. Like as long as I go to church, take communion and get baptized ill be totally okay. God desires of us a real heart change and I'm not sure this Catholic and ancient teaching of works is working to produce great fruit for Christ
That's correct. Luther's theology is more of a dialectic between Law (God's demands as holy and just) and Gospel (the promise of forgiveness to those who believe). Belief for Luther is not primarily propositional, but has a participatory element as well.
@@Magnulus76 To strengthen your point, belief/faith/trust for Luther is primarily relational (participatory); either one trusts Christ, His Word and works, or one trusts the devils, their lies and works. This is reflected in the Lutheran emphasis on the preached Word (in sermon, song, Sacrament and Divine Service); that the people are surrounded by Christ's Word to combat the devils'.
@@j.g.4942 By participatory, I mean a person is fully involved in the sacramental life.
@Magnulus76
I think pastorally it's helpful to frame your assurance in having a relationship with God. Because in relationships, you might not always be perfect, but you put in the effort to show that you care and that you love that person. In this case, you love God and so your goal is not to prove your worth, but to show you love.
The reason I don't tend to like a works based foundation is because ive noticed in myself and others it often leads away from the gospel. It becomes more important to either prove yourself or you become fixated on how you haven't given to the poor in a few months or you have this one habitual sin. I think relationships are more complicated than that and your heart should be a desire to get rid of your old self so that you can be united with the one who has saved you.
@@Magnulus76 of course, it's not much of a marriage if you only meet over text.
Fascinating!
What would Jordan Cooper say? I wonder.
I've heard Lutherans say that, although educated by Nominalists, Luther was not one.
Matthew Thomas seems to think otherwise.
This explains my own thoughts on divine sovereignty and human freedom without having fully understood the philosophical nuances mentioned here.
My question has been: Why? Why does my faith, and any related actions, have to be an affront to God's sovereignty and glory?
I've had an affinity for the way the Church Fathers understood this. Now I know why.
Many thanks!
The main difference between lutheranism and synergistic and/or sacramentarian theologies is anthropology. Man has not got free will. Nominalism leads to work salvation. Luther taught the exact opposite.
Austin this was a great discussion. Can you please have a discussion with Bishop Barron next?
I wish! I've tried in the past but haven't been able to book him. He's a busy guy
@@GospelSimplicity hopefully some day! Thanks for all you do on this channel. I’ve learned a lot.
With regard to Occam's Razor, it's worth remembering a comment by Einstein: We must make things as simple as possible. But no simpler.
Yet again you misrepresent Luther.
"We are saved by faith alone, but the faith that saves is never alone." - Martin Luther
Citation?
I thought this was Calvin's quote
Just looked up on it, the quote is closer to Calvin than Luther's quote but Luther says something to similar in line with "Faith that works through love" and "Faith without works is dead"
I wish we had a chapter of the Bible that explicitly dealt with the question of whether we’re saved by faith alone or not…
@@marincusman9303
Ephesians 2:8-9, Titus 3:3-7, Romans 4:1-6, 2 Timothy 1:8-9 and quite a few more
Such a helpful video!
I have a hard time believing that he has read Luther’s “A Treatise on Good Works”. Luther absolutely believed that men work out their faith. I don’t think he was a nominalist or tried to force everything on a single plane.
Luther was incoherent and inconsistent in his views. In the history of Christianity, basically every heretic has affirmed both the heresy and the orthodoxy in order to make their heresy less obvious.
He doesn't seem to realise the only thing Luther said was by faith alone was the forgiveness of sins. That forgiveness is what was taught as being by faith alone. Luther's antinomian disputations from the 1530s demonstrate this quite adequately.
This shows how the good old Calvinist predestination stuff happens. His ending doesn't really get him out of it; if God wants you saved, you're gonna be saved, if not, you're gonna be out. 100 percent.(and of course, everyone counts themselves as saved, lol) I'll stick with the Catholic view that it's relational, like a marriage, you have to do your part to be in it. People so don't realize what they're missing not being part of the church, and playing around with all these offshoots.
But the scriptures quite explicitly say that God desires all to be saved, so His salvific Grace must be equally applied equally to all mankind. Calvinism with its limited atonement is a nonsensical position, if there's any remotely feasible alternative to the traditional position it's Universalism, if, for example, you assume man cannot reject Divine Grace or that man's willful or active participation in it is not necessary for salvation.
You do realize Thomism and by extension double predestination were the prevailing view of the midiaval Roman Catholic Church?
@@npuritan6769True
People often forget that Catholics and Calvinists don't disagree on predestination while we disagree on areas around predestination such as grace, perseverance, mortal sin and more.
@@npuritan6769 I believe you are are conflating Thomism with "double predestination" as understood by Calvin. There is predestination in Thomism; in fact, in all orthodox Catholicism there is some form of predestination. But no double predestination as active reprobation.
When the Catholic position is properly understood, and you realize many of Luther's valid criticisms were addressed at the Council of Trent, it becomes incredibly difficult to understand why Protestantism is still necessary. Frankly, I'm sort of surprised Protesantism still exists. We just have too much access to patristics, history, the Catechism, and so on now.
I suppose many people were raised with anti-catholic polemics from their pastor and Jack Chick tracts and so on. I don't think it's a coincidence that we're seeing many Protestants go Catholic/Orthodox in the age of the internet - I myself was shocked when I compared actual Catholic teaching to what I'd heard being raised Baptist.
He posted more than just one thesis....
Quite simple actually. The Catholic Church changed doctrines way too much throughout church history. This is objective truth. Much of what the Catholic Church teaches did not come from the apostles, such as clergy being celibate for example. This came in the Middle Ages. Now obviously, I know Paul explained how it is good to be so, but it was never a requirement. The Catholics have many accretions.
As for Orthodox, I think they’re a lot closer. However, I’m skeptical of intercession of saints and Mary since this is not mentioned in all of church history until hundreds of years later after the apostles. Then when you compare the prayers early on, much more reserved. Then as time goes on some become very close to idolatry, such as asking Mary for salvation.
@@ihiohoh2708 And the requirement for Christians to venerate icons... It's not that all protestant expressions are correct either, but the reformation epistemology allows for course correction.
So essentially it seems as though these churches put tradition above all, even when they appear to be accretions. The dogma of them is my issue. That you must absolutely believe this in every way despite evidence against it or you could potentially even go to hell. Where is any of this in Scripture? It’s not.
My encouragement to everyone would be to read Luther and Melancthon for yourselves, especially the Book of Concord, and weigh the arguments carefully. Certainly, secondary scholarship is helpful, but you can only get enriched if you spend time reading the Augsburg Confession and the Apology from the Lutherans and then Exsurge Domine, the Confutation, and then the canons of Trent from the Catholic side. Be good students of history, and do the homework. Personally, I’m not convinced by the “Luther was a nominalist” polemic, when it seems like the truth was a lot more nuanced.
No one should care so much about the opinions of one man if that one man is not in agreement with the historical understanding of the church. Luther is like anyone, right about some things, wrong about others. Nothing should be built upon him because only one true foundation can be laid, and that is Jesus Christ. Luther, brilliant as he was, is a faulty foundation, like any other man.
Your comment is not accurate. Anyone individual can have an extended bad influence on anything.
@@richardbenitez1282 My comment is perfectly accurate. It says nobody *should*.. you say that anybody can. Just because they can doesn't mean they should.
@dumbidols. I’m not aware of anyone who DOES base all their theological opinions on one man. No present Lutheran sect is all that particularly reliant on Luther’s thought and teaching.
I didn't hear where he defined justification. He seems to be using that term interchangeably with salvation. It would be interesting to me to hear his definitions of justification, salvation, and sanctification.
I'd recommend watching the full interview or better yet, reading his article on the subject!
Polycarp - Letter to the Philippians Ch.1 (110 AD)
"In whom, though now you see Him not, you believe, and believing, rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory; 1 Peter 1:8 into which joy many desire to enter, knowing that by grace you are saved, not of works, Ephesians 2:8-9 but by the will of God through Jesus Christ."
What’s your point? Catholics are not Pelagians
@@carsonianthegreat4672
Go reply to what I answered to you
This blew my mind when I watched the original interview earlier this year.
Link?
Polycarp - Letter to the Philippians Ch.1 (110 AD)
"In whom, though now you see Him not, you believe, and believing, rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory; 1 Peter 1:8 into which joy many desire to enter, knowing that by grace you are saved, not of works, Ephesians 2:8-9 but by the will of God through Jesus Christ."
@@DrGero15 ruclips.net/video/C25p_RuDFtU/видео.htmlsi=Xxf8Mj3KxO8MVC-y
@DrGero15 just replied with link though in case it gets removed, it's under this Channel's video tab from roughly a month or so ago / Dr Matthew Thomas interview
What finished Luther in my eyes was his book "On Jews and Their Lies " i listened to some of it on audio (youtube has many ). He gave himself away as being anything but a Christian. Its an evil intented book and seeing he wrote this at the end of his career it truly shows his colors. And a bad seed cant produce good fruit. Im Catholic but i do admit to listening now and then to a protestant sermon because i believe any honest sermon based from the parables or the o.t. stories has goodness in it. Pray for unity, pray the Rosary daily and obtain that peace that defies understanding. 🙏🏽💙🙏🏾💙🙏🏻
Now read John Eck's treatise on the Jews written just before Luther's. Eck was Luther's primary opponent on the Catholic side.
@@AnUnhappyBusinessNow realize that good people do bad things sometimes, and bad people do good things sometimes.
@richardkasper5822. Well, then, you’d better jettison Thomas More while you’re at it, who could be just as vile personally and rhetorically. (Oh, and can you assure us that your own behavior has always been on the up and up? Or have there been episodes that would cause us to doubt your Christian status?)
I'll throw in my two cents as to why from what I've read, since Luther's philosophy is highly contentious within and without the Reformation traditions and I'm unqualified in that regard.
Luther, as a medieval lawyer, assumed his then-contemporary standards of law code. That is, you are declared externally righteous on a matter completely extrinsic to yourself. The justification is not of you but by that which is outside of you, namely the evidences used. Thus, Luther sees justification in this sense, it's not of the agent. And, from that, it has to be Christ's righteousness which we accrue in this alien sense that makes this at all possible, since He alone is the righteous man to have ever existed. So imputation (thanks to Latin butchering logizomai, , I spelled it wrong) is how we are reckoned as righteous. Just as a court declares us righteous in light of the evidence, so too are we declared righteous by the account of Christ.
As such, sola fide isn't (as evangelicals assume) you just have faith and God handles the rest. Faith by itself, in the classical Reformation, was meaningless. It doesn't do anything on its own. It was just that by which you accrued Christ's merits. It was only beneficial in that regard as a tool, not a virtue. So faith is how you gain that imputation of Christ's merits. And that's what sola fide in the classical sense is. It is the imputation of a foreign righteousness completely alien to the agent receiving it for the purpose that they are justified. Which, in that way, is certainly a nominalist way of thinking and the line of reasoning absolutely is. I'm not arguing if Luther was a dyed-in-the-wool nominalist since that's highly contentious, but he certainly wasn't unaffected by it.
More to this video, the conflict begins when he and others like Melancthon, Chemnitz, and Calvin try to find early church use of this idea of sola fide being used in the early church. Ad fontes! The issues were immediately all over the place. You had bad translations floating around, manipulations of texts, and the ultimate realization that the early church just did not teach this method of justification via imputation. Because, unsurprisingly, these ancient-to-early-medieval thinkers did not have the idea of late-medieval law proceedings and nominalist assumptions to go off of. More to the point, that's why you get the idea the early church apostatized either immediately after the Apostles died out or that it was corrupted at some point later, whether by Constantine, Theodosius, or whatever boogeyman you need. Why do you think Luther came up with the "Great Apostasy"? Because they weren't teaching the hinge upon which the Church stands or falls.
I stand open to correction but that's where I see the issue as it lies. But, since I assume there will be quotes from people like Clement or John Chrysostom or others thrown out as saying phrases like "faith alone" or "not of ourselves," ask these 2 questions: do those readings fit in accord with imputation and faith as an empty virtue? Or, do they fit in accord with a plain-old anti-Pelagian/Augustinian reading?
Whats ironic is Luther admits that he was a better Christian as a Catholic than he was as a Protestant lol:
This is what St. Paul meant when he preaches about love. “If I speak in the tongues of angels;” and again: “If I had all faith so that I could move mountains, but did not have love, then I would still be nothing,” etc. (1 Corinthians 13[:1-2]) If a person goes off securely in the thought that he has faith, and yet never experiences it, he must decay and dry up; his faith will be found nowhere at all when it comes to the point that it should be found.
The dear apostles certainly saw this, and we experience it. The world always either boasts falsely about faith, or wants to be holy without faith. If we preach about faith and grace, no one wants to do works. If we promote works, no one wants faith. Those who keep to the true middle course are very rare. Indeed, it is even hard for righteous Christians.
I confess for myself - and without a doubt others must also confess, that I lack the diligence and seriousness [some translations: “earnestness”], which I should now much more than before; I am much more careless than I was under the papacy. Nowhere is there now the seriousness [some translations: “zeal”] with the Gospel which we saw previously among the monks and priests, when people established and built so much, and no one was so poor that he would not give something. However, now there is not one city which would support a preacher, and nothing except only robbing and stealing among the people, and no one restrains it. Where does such a shameful affliction come from? They cry out: “From the doctrine they teach, that people should not rely on works!” However, it is the devil himself who falsely blames this on the pure, saving doctrine; it is the fault of his and people’s malice who misuse this doctrine - as well as our old Adam who always wants to follow the forest trail to nowhere- and think that it is unnecessary, even if we do not do many good works and so become unintentionally lazy and negligent and stale, until we completely lose the strength and savor of faith. (Sermon on 1 John 4:16-21: from a series of sermons on 1 John and love, dated 1532-1533; in Luther’s Works, Vol. 78: Church Postil IV [2015], 365-405;
Ultimately Catholics and Orthodox and later Protestants really took off when they were embraced by the aristocracy. In the case of Protestants it was not so much the arguments that persuaded the local lords to embrace it, but the opportunity to set up their own religious little sphere of power that is not beholden to Rome. It was a golden opertiunity for local ambitious lords to set up their own religious spheres and not be answerable to Rome, and as long as there was only Catolics around this could not be done. Protestant flavor offered new ways to keep the religion that peasants wanted while detach oneself from Rome. And once the opportunity was recognized and acted upon, protestant flavor of Christianity truly had a chance to be something more than just a heretical branch. Only when aristocracy embraces religion does it really take off, as it is seen with rainbow mafia today. Ortodox were blessed with Constantine, Catholics also were embraced by rich and powerful after initial persecution. and finally protestants. If the aristocracy didn't embrace it and sided with Rome, there would be no protestants... no matter how much they protested. Regardless of moral arguments, the thing that religion or ideology really needs is patronage of the rich and powerful to thrive. Liberalism, Feminism, fascism, communism, Nazism, progressivism, technocracy etc. Modern ideologies only took off when rich and powerful patronize it, and when it comes to revolutions it was the time and place that played the key role, when the old regime crumbled under their own weight, as in French Revolution, Russian Revolution etc. Maybe people only look at moral arguments, which may be on point, but it will only take it so far, you need patronage of the ruling class as well, or at very least, world level cataclysmic events, like WWI or something similar to create conditions for hostile take over of the weak regime, otherwise the ruling class will make sure you stay in the shadows.
Have some fun with this: go to the document linked. Then read the first section on Luther. Note that he uses a particular section of Luther's 2nd commentary on Galatians as his text for Luther's "narrow" interpretation of justification. Ok. Now go to section 5, where he discusses some modern broader ideas on justification. Oh what's this? He now cites other paragraphs from the same chapter of the same Luther commentary he cited earlier, but now he is saying it has this broader understanding of justification. Gee, maybe that broader understanding was there all the time and people chose to ignore it? I'm not making this up, just go check out his paper, it's kinda hilarious and also deflates his whole presentation here.
EXACTLY!!! --- G R E A T video Austin !!!!
I reply to the argument, then, that our obedience is necessary for salvation. It is, therefore, a partial cause of our justification. Many things are necessary which are not a cause and do not justify, as for instance the earth is necessary, and yet it does not justify. If man the sinner wants to be saved, he must necessarily be present, just as he asserts that I must also be present. What Augustine says is true, “He who has created you without you will not save you without you.”1 Works are necessary to salvation, but they do not cause salvation, because faith alone gives life. On account of the hypocrites we must say that good works are necessary to salvation. It is necessary to work. Nevertheless, it does not follow that works save on that account, unless we understand necessity very clearly as the necessity that there must be an inward and outward salvation or righteousness. Works save outwardly, that is, they show evidence that we are righteous and that there is faith in a man which saves inwardly, as Paul says, “Man believes with his heart and so is justified, and he confesses with his lips and so is saved” [Rom. 10:10]. Outward salvation shows faith to be present, just as fruit shows a tree to be good.
“THE DISPUTATION CONCERNING JUSTIFICATION,” LW, 165.
There are different causes of justification.
@@Mkvine there is only one cause of justification. Christ. Be focused.
@@Λουθηρανισμός Christ is the meritorious cause. Grace is the formal cause. God’s glory is the final cause.
Funny thing is Luther did not lived during the Apostolic era and was not even privy to witnessing to Jesus's teachings or even the Apostles!
Correct. He had the only infallible source of the apostles's teachings, the Scriptures.
@@geoffrobinson Yes, and he disagreed with Calvin and Zwingli about what those Scriptures meant on the Eucharist, the necessity of baptism, predestination, the veneration of icons, and so on. The central claim of the Reformation was that Scripture is able to be plainly interpreted, and yet there was never a single point in history where the Reformers agreed on key issues of salvation and worship practice. Sacred Tradition allows us to interpret Scripture rightly in light of the oral teachings of the Apostles and the Church's interpretation over the centuries.
Polycarp - Letter to the Philippians Ch.1 (110 AD)
"In whom, though now you see Him not, you believe, and believing, rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory; 1 Peter 1:8 into which joy many desire to enter, knowing that by grace you are saved, not of works, Ephesians 2:8-9 but by the will of God through Jesus Christ."
Neither did anyone during his time, your point?
@@bradyhayes7911the problem was that Zwingli and Calvin were humanists, Luther was not
Doesn’t matter anymore, considering the Roman Catholics are all humanists today as well, the jesuits did a great job at that .
Anyways, enjoy your idol worship
Aren't modern day televangelists trying to " sell" heaven as well?
Copeland, Osteen, Dollar....?
So we could say that Luther attacked nominalist conclusions on salvation, without questioning nominalism itself
Luther’s view of forensic imputation is itself nominalist.
Has Austin converted? His last videos are attacking protestantism. Have I missed an episode? So he's EO or RC?
@@EmmaBerger-ov9ni I don't think he has
@@cabellero1120. only a matter of time!
The biggest lie is people believing there has ever actually been a consensus of the fathers lol
If only there were 7 times over 1000 years where all of them got together and reached consensus
Damn, protestantism is just losing so hard this year
Orthotroll.😄
Riiiight.. let me go kiss a picture...
@@icxcnika2037Multiple councils before Nicaea II condemned the veneration of icons, go look it up.
Why did you give a statement of [eternal separation from God] to open your comment? Contextually, its placement made no sense. Could it be that you merely want to use filthy language like Papists and Russo-simps love to use? I fail to see the point of cussing here, beyond the abandonment of virtue.
@simontemplar3359 do you salute a flag?
Lutheran theology is the only one that distinguishes the law from the gospel AND gives to the sacraments their proper position, i.e. means of grace. Our salvation is ''extra nos'', comes from God not from us, not from us even 0,0001%. Please do not manipulate Philippians 2 to your synergistic/pelasgian/semi-pelasgian/arminian theology. Never forget what it says there. It says ''μετὰ φόβου καὶ τρόμου τὴν ἑαυτῶν σωτηρίαν κατεργάζεσθε'' ( = work out your own salvation with fear and trembling) and continues ''ὁ Θεὸς γάρ ἐστιν ὁ ἐνεργῶν ἐν ὑμῖν καὶ τὸ θέλειν καὶ τὸ ἐνεργεῖν ὑπὲρ τῆς εὐδοκίας'' ( = for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure). ONLY CHRIST, BY GRACE, THROUGH THE GIFT OF FAITH IN WORD AND BAPTISM, AS IT IS TESTIFIED IN THE BIBLE, ALL THE GLORY TO GOD.
Amen brother
Amen brother. To me It's just fascinating, the way so many papist twisted the scripture to defend the infallibility of their 'church'.
Look how they twist scripture. Let’s pray for this guy.
Alright boys, we're done here. He admitted in the title. Let's move on, protestantism is over. Let's move to the next thing.
Next thing is catholicism
..feel the wonders of God ..
if Luther was a Occamist (did I spell this correctly?), how come he remained Trinitarian?
Because he saw the Trinity presented in the scriptures. It’s not an unnecessarily complicated thing, and Occam was not interested in putting aside complex explanations as long as those explanations are accurate and can’t be reduced without harm.
@@silouanlane319 aw. Ok. Allow me to expound further although this is rhetorical at this point. Even slightly hypothetical.
It all boils down then to how you interpret the scripture. The Iglesia ni Cristo sect in the Philippines will tend to be occamist about trinity - since the bible was not fully explicit with the trinity, they reject it and its complex philosophical arguments. But Luther used the occam's razor because it is convenient to what he believed the bible is saying, but otherwise he doesn't use it on the doctrines he agrees with.
It seems the oversimplified explanation of why Luther had his own doctrine of justification is correct - he read a version of romans 3:28 that has a slight difference in words.
Augustine of Hippo really has not helped any of us as with regards to causality or predestination. This is my personal opinion anyway. I just find meticulous causal determinism - in either it's Augustinian, Aquinan or Reformation forms, entirely incoherent and unnecessary in light of a real degree of autonomy and synergy (whilst not denying the preventing nature of Grace) that John Cassian and the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox and others etc have always held to.
A reading of John of Damascus on Divine Providence is very enlightening x
You should ask the same questions to an Orthodox theologian.
This is very clarifying as an ortho catechumen, thanks!
tell me how that racist emblem squares with Christianity, please...
@@simontemplar3359 Please tell me how judging others squares with Christianity please… The flag isn’t racist in and of itself. Don’t be so absurd.
Brother, as a fellow Orthodox inquirer, I would encourage you to change your profile picture.
@@guntotinpatriot8873the union was full of slave owners too ya know
@@authorityfigure1630 There were some in the Border States, but most of the North had largely abandoned slavery by the outbreak of the War. At any rate, there were far more slave owners in the South. The goal of the Confederacy was to preserve slavery, whereas the goal of the Union was, after 1863, to destroy slavery. History is never black and white, but the Confederacy was clearly a state founded on white supremacy and the subjugation of Black people. By the way, this is coming from someone who was raised believing that the South's cause was noble and that the Confederate flag was a symbol of "heritage". But if you read the writings of Jefferson Davis, Alexander Stevens, and several other prominent Confederates, it becomes abundantly clear that the Civil War was unequivocally about slavery.
This is a complete caricature of Luther. It is, at least, very controversial. Many, many scholar don’t buy this.
I dont think the good doctor understands the reformation tradition, honestly. This line of thinking is quite silly, and he notes how protestants are returning to the pre-occamist model, but completely ignores the Reformed and Lutheran second and third generation theologians who were never once nominalist. Its patently obvious that Luther, Calvin, vermigli, zanchi, etc did not place God and man on the same plane. At the very least the reformed tradition was broadly thomistic (not entirely thomist) in affirming participation by analogy against univocity of being. But hey all i am doing is inviting ten catholics to instantly disagree
This guy seems nice and charitable, but he says quite a lot of things in untrue ways. Ockham's razor is not just "simplify" nor anything close to it. To do that is to perform an unacceptable Ockham on what Ockham is (lol just being silly but seriously) it's more like "the solution with the least amount of unproven assumptions is a better solution as long as it explains the result the same." -- an impossible measurement beyond the most simplistic logical questions, but there it is, and is only true insofar as everything proposed actually corresponds to reality.
"Why do we have to receive it 100% as a gift?"
- because Paul says it's a gift directly. This is the problem with propositional representations of the living spirit. I have not read all of Luther, but I find it impossible to believe Luther didn't say "why...a gift? Because Paul says it's a gift and not of works." This guy unfortunately has an agenda, as do all men with everything, but it comes down to what's true. Philosophy is only worthy of anything insofar as it corresponds to reality.
Also, two planes of existence actually do exist, I am convinced. We are a simulation. God is the only true reality. We are categorically unlike Him in terms of our kind of existence. We are derivative not primary, this is obviously true within divine simplicity framed Christianity and I think an inescapable conclusion regardless of where you land on the manner of God's nature. If He is "base" reality (really real) and we are derivatively real and therefore less or categorically differently real (obviously true), then there must be planes of existence and causality (I think).
Also also, equivocation is such a common issue in all of these discussions, but I find it particularly prevalent in Catholic apologies. "work out your salvation" in the context of the same sentence is instantly paired with "it's God at work in you". To conflate Paul's use of "work out/produce your salvation..." with Paul's other use of "works which are meritorious compelling God to save you through effort" is egregious equivocation. Works have nothing to do with our •reception of Christ's offering• (for my Catholic friends: Protestants generally call the "already" portion of our salvation when we accept Christ at the call of the Gospel "being saved" but forget there is a "not yet" component to salvation also which Catholics definitely understand), this is clear in Romans, Ephesians, etc that we are not saved by works and it can have nothing to do with works or else it is not by grace. Works are the completion of our faith (Hebrews) which is a culmination and manifestation of our Trust in Christ. They are "you participating in salvation" (salvation here meaning "the life that comes after accepting Christ")" but you aren't participating in your salvation (here meaning "the act of being cleared of sin and judgment"). This isn't woo woo. I wish people could stop being so woo woo
Edit: had to make an edit! Sorry! Forgot the equivocation piece and needed to change some confusing wording
I see a lot of your opinions here, but I don't see them as obviously true. Why, therefore, should I take your word for it that the "gift" means exactly what you think it means? No one denies that salkvation is a gift. That doesn't amount to Luther's novel interpretation being true.
@@EpistemicAnthonydid you read the whole thing?
@@EpistemicAnthony gift means gift. Luther is the opposite of novelty in theology. The real thing, absolutely biblical and true.
@user-nj1rc9hk4h "Gift means gift." Gosh, what a groundbreaking contribution!
Many things can be "Biblical," because it is actually very easy to make multiple interpretations fit the same text, because as literally every literary analysis scholar agrees, written text is too vague to make certain claims on when people disagree. Fortunately, history can tell us how the earliest Christians took it, and the way they understood it was not the way that Luther understood salvation.
There are many ways to understand the phrase "salvation is a gift." "I am declared legally allowed into heaven by God because I intellectually agree with the gospel" is one new way to interpret it.
Why would someone need to repent? Wouldn't God just do your repentance for you or to you if God does 100% of everything involved in your salvation?
Christ calls for repentance
Because Luther wants the authority...and he wants to get married....so when he left catholicism he made his own religion then get married....
Luther thought he was too smart for his own good.
He certainly thought he was smarter then the Church
So I’m a bit confused. My elders all hold to a reformed soteriology and call themselves compatibilists. They claim that reformed soteriology is comptabilism. Why is it being presented differently here?
A more classical reformed position a la Calvin is monergism. The compatibility minded reformed folks are trying to avoid totally refuting human agency in salvation because monergism is clearly not presented in the scriptures. And human participation in salvation clearly does not lessen the glory due to God.
@@silouanlane319 compatibilists are monergists.
@@chanano1689nope
@@chanano1689 ish. Not always.
This is junk. I’m out.
Ave Christus Rex
Ave Maria Regina
Jesus never said "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and my mom is too."
@@simontemplar3359nobody said He said that. Again distortions of the anti catholics. I would really wish to see , if if only once, an anti catholic phrase which is true.
@@ilonkastille2993🎯
St. Martin Luther
calling Luther a nominalist because you think he holds a black and white view and then liken that to Occam is not a good rational for the claim. he may yet be one but that is a flimsy reason for calling him one.
Dr cooper discusses in this video.
ruclips.net/video/plVNAjR0LU8/видео.html
That's what you get for saying luther was a nominalist, lol jk bro. We all have philosophical and personal presupositions, sone are biblical, some we import. luther tried to be consistent with the bible but he actually still held to some false dialectics and his own philosophical presups that messed up his theology a bit. Im lutheran btw.
No, his theology is not at all messed up. If you are a lutheran, be a true and in depth one.
@user-nj1rc9hk4h ok, how do you reconcile jesus saying that if we don't forgive we will not be forgiven with sola fide? How do you explain james, revelation and the final judgement passage were the bible talks about christians being justified by works, if not by some form of synergistic theology?
As a protestant the main issue with protestantism is we took augustine
And went totally overboard
Augustine was a manchiean gnostic for 10 years and believed god preordained everything
Many fathers speak on faith alone. But the idea of the father predestination s u to faith is ridiculous
Calvinism is absolutely ridiculous god is free and so are we.
There are numerous examples
But the e.o. and rcc misrepresent us. And believe we dont want to do good works. ...
I.e. a mountaiin im on is a porn addiction. Its gotten better. I dont watch as much extreme but i dont want to anymore. Im praying for gods help.
But i know i have to respond. Its not his sole responsibility its mine to to respond.
However e.o. rcc have justification and faith backwards.
They say works(fruit) produce a good tree(faith)
Protestant tree(faith ) will produce a change fruit.
We also dont like the extra biblical traditions.
I will not dont care what the excuse is
i will not kiss a image
The idea that icons were used early is totally ridiculous
It wasnt dogma till 600s. And there were major controvery even during eusibius
Also eusibius had no clue what happened to marry. The infancy gospels.
Are gnostic. As well.
Does that mean a piece of art is evil. No.
But no it doesnt mean we pray to them.
Saying the traditions are from the fathers
There only excuse is trust me bro.
Thats why catholics and orthodox are pissed at each other...
What did the pharisees and saducees do...
We got our traditions from moses...
The excuse
Trust me bro.
.... we all know how that worked. Its not like it isnt recorded in every gospel...
The beuty about ecuminical councils is unity...
But the beuty of protestantism.
Is personal responsibility decision making. And our churches or individuals can always course correct.
I.e. i refuse to ban women in ministry
Based on just one passage.
When we have
Miriam
Deborah(who literally led isreal as a judge.)
Junia and other women who were litterally ministering in ephesus.
Or how bought anna... in the gospel of luke... (a prohet)
The same ephesus as timothy. So
Are we to say that pual sends her there
Speaks well of her then turns around and says they cant preach...
No that makes no sense.
Its nonsense. Something else is being described there. 🤔
Also early churches were house churches.
And roman women who are widows.
Would actually control the household we know that pual never advocated the total destruction of a culture. He was concerned with sexual immorality and idol worship.
Orgies the other works of the flesh.
So if a women controlled her household and her friends met in her house for a house service
Who by there culture would head the service.
Would it be polite or respectful for a man from outside to go in and demand authority...
No. I.e.
The women with pual lived there
Would it be appropriate for a random man to demand leadership 🤔
It makes zero sense.
Let alone mary magdalin who carried the message to the apostles who were filled with doubt.😅
There are pics in there catacombs of women in ministry under rome from early on...
Its quite clear that a tradition happened and we lost something important and has been infecting christianity ever sense
1 Timothy 2:12, 1 Corinthians 14:35
@@ihiohoh2708 again never base a doctrine on one verse.
When u consider that in previous books u have women ministers junia.
And if that verse was to be understood as it has been for 1800 years. Cuase in early church there were.
What do u make of the women prophets.
It would make
A) pual a lier
Or the bible becomes contradictory.
That town was ephesus. Ephesus. Was a host town for the daughters of artemis cult.
They taught women were first. Formed
They tuaght women were superior.
They wouldn't let women marry
They made virginity a huge deal.
Where as u look at the rest of that ch.
It talks specifically men were formed first. And women are saved by childbearing.
Also the word translated authority has been noted can actually mean author.
I.e. pual could have been saying I don't permit women to teach authorship of men.
Meaning they made men. Or came before men.
It aligns more with the meaning of the rest of passage.
Also let's look at some logic.
Hypothetical situation here
Let's say there is a huge disaster. And millions die.
A young girl survives and finds a bible in some ruble and begins to read.
She gets up and begins to walk ministering to survivors
People who have never heard the gospel.
She is in a position to spread God's word.
Is it logical for her to get to some random enclave teach the male elder what she knows and then hand the bible to him for her to pass all her knowledge off and never teach ....
Serious question. Or is it due to her for her to pick up leave the man with apt knowledge and head off to convert more.
Proving more leaders up.
Under the church traditions logic a women couldn't say anything to anybody. And it just doesn't follow
@@r.a.panimefan2109 So you think Paul is a liar?
@@ihiohoh2708 no.
I never said pual is a lier
I said that the traditional view.
Creates contradiction.
Similer to how u have people use a few passing passages to justify y.e.c or flat earth.
It creates contradiction.
Pual has women ministers traveling with him. And there are women leaders that are not wicked in o.t.
So by saying pual meant that women couldn't teach creates a contradiction.
It's like christian pacifists. Completley forget god demanded war in. O.t.
It's why if there is one good thing augustine did was just war.
Becuase many early christians were not thinking about Joshua's Conquest.
And even now there are christia. Pacifists that creates contradiction
I'm not calling pual a lier.
I'm saying that a particular interpretation makes him contradict himself.
So don't twist my argument. If u r going to debate with me debate with me in good faith and actually read what I say.
@@r.a.panimefan2109 Well I’m not trying to be mean but it’s hard to make sense of what you’re typing.
Basically no Protestants believe in a consistent Sola Fide anyway. If Sola Fide is true, then I can sin as much as I want and still go to heaven. ANY alternative to this is, in practical application, identical to rejecting Sola Fide, period.
That would be true only if you defined faith as something that did not include repentance and/or love for God.
This is an insightful thought presented unthoughtfully and unhelpfully. I think you're on to something important, BUT you should definitely take some time to learn what "faith" in Christ is. Faith is not merely intellectual assent (seems to be how you're equivocating things), but making Christ your Lord (which obviously requires obeying Him) and trusting in His promise to redeem you if you repent and turn to His sacrifice. Faith can not be less than that. To not have that kind of faith is not to have Christian faith at all.
Congratulations, you just did the objection Paul anticipates in Romans 6:1 after teaching Sola Fide, showing that Paul taught Sola Fide.
@ taylorbarrett Faith alone that includes repentence and love for God is how Pope Benedict XVI defined justification... What exactly are the Protestants opposing then?
@@bradyhayes7911 will you quote or source the passage, please? I'd like to read it. I find it very unlikely it's that simple, but if the claim is true, I definitely want to read it, please. Thank you!
So ummmm Luther is not a pope, and 2. Have you ever watched Catholics and Lutheranism argue about justification, you have to ask them find the point where they disagree, cuz they dont. As a Lutheran i can say yes, your justification is from Christ, but keep sinning in repentadly, walk away from the meas of grace sucjlh as the sacraments and see how much salvation you have.
Sounds like Luther needed more philosophy classes.
Polycarp - Letter to the Philippians Ch.1 (110 AD)
"In whom, though now you see Him not, you believe, and believing, rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory; 1 Peter 1:8 into which joy many desire to enter, knowing that by grace you are saved, not of works, Ephesians 2:8-9 but by the will of God through Jesus Christ."
@@AllforOne_OneforAll1689 well I can just cite the Bible. James Ch 2. Faith without works is dead. You just misunderstand what polycarp is saying. In the writings of Paul when he uses works he’s referring to the Jewish law. Christians do not need to follow the Jewish law to be saved. But we do need to participate in the grace of God. I suggest watching Jimmy Akins recent interview with Frank turek.
@@johnbrion4565
Man you love to add things to the Bible and read it out of context!
You failed to realize not only what Polycarp said but also what Paul said in multiple places. Romans 4:1-6, Titus 3:3-7, 2 Timothy 1:8-9, Ephesians 2:8-9 all teach a person is justified before God by grace through faith apart from works!
Romans 4:1-6 clearly says Abraham believed in God and it counted to him as righteousness, and that was before the Law of Moses so you're entirely incorrect with asserting that Ephesians 2:8-9 is talking about the Law of Moses. Furthermore, Titus 3:3-7 says "we're not saved by works done in righteousness" so again no mention of the Law of Moses! Go read the whole Bible for once and stop isolating James 2 and reading it of context as you just proved to do.
@@AllforOne_OneforAll1689 hah please explain. It’s pretty clear. Are we not to take the plain view reading? Next are you going to say the Eucharist isn’t Jesus body and blood?
@@AllforOne_OneforAll1689 maybe just maybe you are the one misunderstanding. If you read the church fathers they sound very Catholic.
Bro tries to debunk Luther, not with the inspired Word, but with scholasticism, huge L 😂
Luther debunked himself when he authored his book "On Jews and Their Lies " in it he encouraged the burning down of homes ,schools and synagogues and the nazi party even used quotes from this book to further their propaganda and to convince the german people that antisemitism had a long Christian history in Germany.
didnt he quote from Philippians 2 as a direct argument to Luther's occamist view? 90% of the video is him explaining Luther's position.
I don’t think Protestants should concede. Imagine the Arians using this same compatibalist reasoning
Polycarp - Letter to the Philippians Ch.1 (110 AD)
"In whom, though now you see Him not, you believe, and believing, rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory; 1 Peter 1:8 into which joy many desire to enter, knowing that by grace you are saved, not of works, Ephesians 2:8-9 but by the will of God through Jesus Christ."
@@AllforOne_OneforAll1689what’s your point? Catholics are not Pelagians.
@@carsonianthegreat4672
Catholics deny justification by grace by through faith apart from works.
If “Dr. Matthew” has a PhD in church history, he should turn it in, because he doesn’t know crap.
Monergism is biblical. Plain and simple. It’s God centered versus man centered. God regenerates the sinner and changes their nature. That changed nature will want to be righteous and please God. So many people want to steal the glory that is to God alone. P.S. Augustine holds to the doctrines of grace. Man is free, completely free to act in accordance with their nature.
Luther understood the Scriptures better based on reflection that involved both Scripture and previous fathers that came before him. Simple as.
Ephesian 2 says "apart from works so no man can boast" means "apart from works". Planes of causality doesn't mean "with works."
God works 100% for our salvation but only some people believe and some don't? The fault line is with the fallenness of man. Not "Luther did a nominalism" silliness.
I love your wonderful silliness. Every Father but you and Luther are correct
@@yalechuk6714It's called "Pride" and arrogance.' idolatry is another one. A self idolater 😢🥺 🤧🤭 🔥♥️✨
@@yalechuk6714 1 Clement teaches justification by faith alone for instance, so, no I wouldn't phrase it as "everyone before Luther was wrong." Luther is coming to his position after reading Augustine and others. Things get refined over time.
@@christianorthodoxy4769 pride is not listening to Scripture in order to maintain a flawed system. I have no interest in trying to prop up a system like Eastern Orthodoxy that relies on Neo-Platonism or Rome or anything else.
You’re reading something into the text that isn’t there. Ephesians 2:9 simply says that salvation comes apart from works, it does not say that salvation comes through works but God does all of the works.
If salvation was about works in any sense then man would theoretically be able to earn salvation, because Jesus Christ as God assumed human nature and worked perfectly and sinlessly as a man, so man has it within his capacity to do this. But salvation isn’t about works it’s about unity to the divine through the mediator in Christ, in other words it is a relationship not working to fulfill the requirements of the law.
I dont think the good doctor understands the reformation tradition, honestly. This line of thinking is quite silly, and he notes how protestants are returning to the pre-occamist model, but completely ignores the Reformed and Lutheran second and third generation theologians who were never once nominalist. Its patently obvious that Luther, Calvin, vermigli, zanchi, etc did not place God and man on the same plane. At the very least the reformed tradition was broadly thomistic (not entirely thomist) in affirming participation by analogy against univocity of being. But hey all i am doing is inviting ten catholics to instantly disagree